Atsc 3.0 - Page 22 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 217Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #631 of 683 Old 09-13-2017, 08:29 PM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit, Tampa Bay
Posts: 14,638
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1251 Post(s)
Liked: 2420
Quote:
Originally Posted by wco81 View Post
But maybe there's a business model to entice the carriers or device makers.
Oceans of free advertising might do it. Though that's not practical in any election year.

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.
DrDon is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #632 of 683 Old 09-14-2017, 01:04 AM
Advanced Member
 
wizwor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Danville, NH
Posts: 722
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 331 Post(s)
Liked: 200
Once again the ATSC 3.0 advocates are trying to solve a nonexistent problem. Free and unlimited streaming is coming quickly. More quickly than ATSC 3.0. One more radio will only add to cost and diminish battery life. No one is going to force ATSC 3.0 on anyone (a problem that does exist). I heard a rumor that ATSC 3.0 will be mandatory on 3D TVs
wizwor is online now  
post #633 of 683 Old 09-14-2017, 03:38 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Trip in VA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA, US
Posts: 15,535
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 831 Post(s)
Liked: 252
Send a message via AIM to Trip in VA
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizwor View Post
Free and unlimited streaming is coming quickly.
Really? I pay for Netflix and Amazon Prime, Hulu is a paid service, and Disney is preparing two paid services. DirecTV Now, Sling TV, Playstation Vue, and Apple TV all are paid services. Where will this free, unlimited streaming be coming from? I missed those announcements.

- Trip

N4MJC

Comments are my own and not that of the FCC (my employer) or anyone else.

RabbitEars

"Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand..." - Rush "Witch Hunt"

Trip in VA is offline  
 
post #634 of 683 Old 09-14-2017, 03:47 AM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit, Tampa Bay
Posts: 14,638
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1251 Post(s)
Liked: 2420
I missed those announcements, too. But it would not surprise me to see carriers start to originate programming that comes complimentary. AT&T has stuck a toe into those waters with streaming for DirecTV customers that doesn't count against their data plans. Sure, you have to be a DirecTV customer and you could be limited to 480p.. so technically not free, but a step in that direction, nonetheless. Some carrier merges with Dish and it could get interesting.
wizwor likes this.

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.
DrDon is online now  
post #635 of 683 Old 09-14-2017, 03:56 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Trip in VA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA, US
Posts: 15,535
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 831 Post(s)
Liked: 252
Send a message via AIM to Trip in VA
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
The paper says that the ATSC 3.0 circuity and antennas will:
While I agree that no mandate has been sought and it would be surprising if the FCC had a mandate, this confuses me a bit. In Japan, many phones, including the Samsung Galaxy series, have 1Seg, which is ISDB-T's mobile TV, integrated into them. I'm not entirely clear on why the laws of physics vary between Japan and the United States such that receiving UHF TV works there but would not work here. Reading the full white paper is on my to-do list, but I expect it's going to be difficult to explain what makes the two so different considering the similar frequencies involved.

Perhaps future space vehicle launches should be in countries where the laws of physics vary such that the pull of gravity is reduced.

- Trip
PA_MainyYak and kc9pke like this.

N4MJC

Comments are my own and not that of the FCC (my employer) or anyone else.

RabbitEars

"Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand..." - Rush "Witch Hunt"

Trip in VA is offline  
post #636 of 683 Old 09-14-2017, 05:40 AM
Advanced Member
 
wizwor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Danville, NH
Posts: 722
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 331 Post(s)
Liked: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip in VA View Post
Really? I pay for Netflix and Amazon Prime, Hulu is a paid service, and Disney is preparing two paid services. DirecTV Now, Sling TV, Playstation Vue, and Apple TV all are paid services. Where will this free, unlimited streaming be coming from? I missed those announcements.

- Trip
Free delivery not content. Netflix OTA will not be free either.
wizwor is online now  
post #637 of 683 Old 09-14-2017, 07:09 AM
Member
 
jeff_rigby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Sarasota Florida
Posts: 138
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
ATSC 3.0
T-Mobile: No To ATSC 3.0 Cellphone Mandate
Given the "detrimental effects" of including ATSC 3.0 chips and antennas in cellphones, the wireless carrier argues in a 10-page "white paper" that the FCC should not mandate that device makers install them. "The decision as to whether to include ATSC 3.0 in a device must be left to the market to decide."

By Harry A. Jessell
TVNewsCheck, September 12, 2017 2:05 PM EDT

Broadcasters are not asking the FCC to mandate that makers of cellphones install ATSC 3.0 tuners in them so that that they can receive broadcasts from stations that migrate to the new standard.

But T-Mobile is not taking any chances.

Yesterday, it submitted a 10-page white paper to the FCC asserting that, given the “the detrimental effects” that ATSC 3.0 tuners and antennas would have on phones and wireless service, whether to install them should be left to the market.

“Mobile reception of ATSC 3.0 is a complex issue that requires careful consideration of all the necessary physical characteristics of a mobile device,” the paper says.

“A new receive chain, including new antennas, filters and other materials, is required. ATSC 3.0 antennas can affect the device performance, especially in the 600 MHz band," it continues. “The limited space in mobile devices precludes new ATSC 3.0 functionality and that physical space could be utilized for other, more beneficial purposes.

“Finally, ATSC 3.0 does not enhance the ability of emergency communications but may instead endanger reception of such transmissions.”

The paper says that the ATSC 3.0 circuity and antennas will:

Increase the size and cost of devices, rendering them “uncompetitive” with phones without ATSC 3.0 capability.
Degrade the wireless service.
Take up space in the phones that could be better used for other purposes like antennas for low-band 4X4 MIMO wireless reception, which is more robust and immune to interference.
Interfere will public safety applications of the wireless service.

http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/1...lphone-mandate
Some points:

1) If ATSC 3.0 is mandated then there is no competition issue.
2) Since ATSC 3.0, other than audio codec, is an international standard then if one large country mandates ATSC 3.0 reception in cell phones then likely all cell phone chipsets will support ATSC 3.0. Designs will include antennas with no practical need or advantage in removing or redesigning the antenna for markets that do not mandate ATSC 3.0. When ATSC 3.0 is popular and enough cell phones support ATSC 3.0 at no extra expense then the FCC may mandate it.

3) The paper is trying to head off support for a mandate which means there is significant pressure for a mandate. The arguments are for the most part, without merit given a standalone ATSC 3.0 tuner cost of less than $5.00 with Sinclair offering millions of them free to prime the pump.

A comment referenced hurricane Irma where cell phone tower emergency generators ran out of gas but TV stations were still on the air. Another comment referenced land line telephone service disruption and an overloading of Cell Phone services resulting in poor or no service. The first thing to go would be video and graphics service which would be part of emergency information. We were being told to use texting not voice service on our cell phones during Irma as texting uses less bandwidth.

Last edited by jeff_rigby; 09-14-2017 at 07:25 AM.
jeff_rigby is offline  
post #638 of 683 Old 09-14-2017, 02:27 PM
Advanced Member
 
wizwor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Danville, NH
Posts: 722
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 331 Post(s)
Liked: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeff_rigby View Post
A comment referenced hurricane Irma where cell phone tower emergency generators ran out of gas but TV stations were still on the air. Another comment referenced land line telephone service disruption and an overloading of Cell Phone services resulting in poor or no service. The first thing to go would be video and graphics service which would be part of emergency information. We were being told to use texting not voice service on our cell phones during Irma as texting uses less bandwidth.
Good points.
wizwor is online now  
post #639 of 683 Old 09-14-2017, 05:19 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 29
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 3
T-Mobile is tossing away PR brownie points by opposing any supposed mandate of 3.0 in phones

Also, why would they not want something to happen that could conceivably take some traffic off their networks?

It makes no real sense, from a business point of view
kc9pke is offline  
post #640 of 683 Old 09-14-2017, 05:28 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 29
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip in VA View Post
While I agree that no mandate has been sought and it would be surprising if the FCC had a mandate, this confuses me a bit. In Japan, many phones, including the Samsung Galaxy series, have 1Seg, which is ISDB-T's mobile TV, integrated into them. I'm not entirely clear on why the laws of physics vary between Japan and the United States such that receiving UHF TV works there but would not work here. Reading the full white paper is on my to-do list, but I expect it's going to be difficult to explain what makes the two so different considering the similar frequencies involved.

Perhaps future space vehicle launches should be in countries where the laws of physics vary such that the pull of gravity is reduced.

- Trip
I was thinking the same too. They're claiming the antennae needed will be too large, too much space taken by the equipment to receive and process ATSC 3.0. Too large indicates lower frequencies... they must not understand the VHF band is universally despised by broadcasters in this day and age.

Perhaps you should submit some reply comments refuting some of T-Mo's garbage? Maybe I should as well...
kc9pke is offline  
post #641 of 683 Old 09-14-2017, 06:00 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 29
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizwor View Post
Netflix OTA
People don't expect anything OTA aside cellular to be encrypted, pay antenna TV has not been and never will be a viable business model. It's been tried many times prior
kc9pke is offline  
post #642 of 683 Old 09-14-2017, 06:08 PM
Advanced Member
 
wizwor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Danville, NH
Posts: 722
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 331 Post(s)
Liked: 200
I agree but a lot of ATSC 3.0 investment has been to provide a framework for pay tv and securing content.
wizwor is online now  
post #643 of 683 Old 09-14-2017, 06:27 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 29
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 3
The same was done with ATSC and beyond things like Airbox were never used. Should be a non-issue but still, some people can't learn from the past
kc9pke is offline  
post #644 of 683 Old 09-14-2017, 09:17 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeff_rigby View Post
The paper is trying to head off support for a mandate which means there is significant pressure for a mandate.
Nah, the pressure is fairly light especially considering the FCC is not favoring a mandate. You can revisit LTE band 12 mandate debate when Samsung, Motorola, Qualcomm and AT&T were fending off regional carriers and the FCC to see significant pressure.


Motorola also submitted comments against a mandate echoing T-Mobile's arguments:


Quote:
As an equipment manufacturer, Motorola agrees with the FCC’s tentative
conclusion that this technological transition should occur on a “voluntary, market-driven
basis” without need for any government “mandate.” Consequently, Motorola is concerned about calls from some parties (none of them
equipment manufacturers) that the FCC mandate the inclusion of ATSC 3.0 receivers in
smartphones and other mobile devices. Mandating equipment functionality without
regard to consumer demand is not in the public interest. Moreover, and as explained in
more detail below, inclusion of an ATSC 3.0 receiver in smartphones and other mobile
devices would present significant technical challenges and limitations, which to
overcome would negatively impact device design, performance, and cost. While
equipment manufacturers routinely face tradeoffs in developing products, they should
be resolved to meet customer demand, not dictated by government fiat.
I can't link directly. You can find the whole 6 page document in 16-142 docket.
sgteq is offline  
post #645 of 683 Old 09-15-2017, 04:15 AM
Member
 
jeff_rigby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Sarasota Florida
Posts: 138
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by sgteq View Post
Nah, the pressure is fairly light especially considering the FCC is not favoring a mandate. You can revisit LTE band 12 mandate debate when Samsung, Motorola, Qualcomm and AT&T were fending off regional carriers and the FCC to see significant pressure.

Motorola also submitted comments against a mandate echoing T-Mobile's arguments:
Quote:
Take up space in the phones that could be better used for other purposes like antennas for low-band 4X4 MIMO wireless reception, which is more robust and immune to interference.
4X4 MIMO is a 800 Mhz multiple in and out 2015 tested standard. When Cell phones start to use the last two UHF TV bands (800 Mhz and much below) in the FCC auctions they will need new antennas and receiver front ends in any case. Isn't the antenna not receiver the difficult part for TV frequencies down to VHF channel 1 54 Mhz...below FM Radio frequencies 88-108 Mhz. If all cell phones support FM Radio but it's not turned on can we assume the antennas are there too? How much more difficult to support below FM's 88 Mhz?

Compromises will need to be made and reception will be poorer on lower frequencies no matter what is done. Is this truly an issue?
jeff_rigby is offline  
post #646 of 683 Old 09-15-2017, 04:20 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Trip in VA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA, US
Posts: 15,535
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 831 Post(s)
Liked: 252
Send a message via AIM to Trip in VA
For FM, a headphone cable is usually used as the antenna.

- Trip
DrDon and PA_MainyYak like this.

N4MJC

Comments are my own and not that of the FCC (my employer) or anyone else.

RabbitEars

"Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand..." - Rush "Witch Hunt"

Trip in VA is offline  
post #647 of 683 Old 09-15-2017, 05:40 AM
Advanced Member
 
PA_MainyYak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Johnstown, PA
Posts: 577
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip in VA View Post
For FM, a headphone cable is usually used as the antenna.

- Trip


...which does not bode well with the increasing reliance on Bluetooth ear buds and headphones... but if there's consumer demand that does not run counter to the business model, it can be made to work.

"One of the few good things about modern times: If you die horribly on television, you will not have died in vain. You will have entertained us."
- Kurt Vonnegut
-0-
PA_MainyYak is offline  
post #648 of 683 Old 09-15-2017, 11:19 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Brian Conrad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Martinez, CA, USA
Posts: 6,901
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1704 Post(s)
Liked: 960
The way things are going will anyone be watching anything OTA when ATSC 3.0 arrives?
Brian Conrad is offline  
post #649 of 683 Old 09-15-2017, 02:01 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
wco81's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 6,468
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1463 Post(s)
Liked: 547
Well cord-cutting is suppose to be a thing. But that often means people signing up for streaming, not necessarily going OTA.
DrDon likes this.
wco81 is online now  
post #650 of 683 Old 09-15-2017, 02:28 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeff_rigby View Post
Compromises will need to be made and reception will be poorer on lower frequencies no matter what is done. Is this truly an issue?
The issue is the requirement to implement ATSC 3.0 support across all smartphones. Some smartphones are so cheap that requiring ATSC 3.0 support may significantly increase the cost. In some phones (but not all of course) ATSC support may truly affect other RF features and functions. If 1seg is still not mandatory in Japan why should ATSC 3.0 be mandatory in the US off the start? The docket where the comments were filed is not even appropriate for the discussion. They should have filed in Public Safety.
sgteq is offline  
post #651 of 683 Old 09-15-2017, 02:35 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
wco81's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 6,468
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1463 Post(s)
Liked: 547
What would be the legal rationale for forcing ATSC 3.0 on phones anyways?

Is there some public interest, like access to important content, like emergency info. that smart phones otherwise wouldn't be able to access?

No, it's about enabling some new business model of one industry.

Now, maybe if the stations had negotiated a deal, giving up their spectrum for mobile use if mobile devices had ATSC 3.0, that might have been a viable argument but if they didn't ask for that, it's too late.
wco81 is online now  
post #652 of 683 Old 09-15-2017, 03:43 PM
UHD Addict
 
aaronwt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Northern VA(Woodbridge)
Posts: 30,976
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6199 Post(s)
Liked: 3846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip in VA View Post
For FM, a headphone cable is usually used as the antenna.

- Trip
How does that work for those of us that never use a headphone cable? I've been using Bluetooth wireless headsets for a long time.

The last thing I want is to be tethered to a phone.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

53TB unRAID2--41TB unRAID3--35TB unRAID1a
Sony 65x850C--Sony UBP-X800--Onkyo HT-S7800
XBL/PSN: WormholeXtreme
aaronwt is offline  
post #653 of 683 Old 09-15-2017, 06:56 PM
Advanced Member
 
wizwor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Danville, NH
Posts: 722
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 331 Post(s)
Liked: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Conrad View Post
The way things are going will anyone be watching anything OTA when ATSC 3.0 arrives?
The answer is yes. The question is will anyone notice when ATSC 3.0 arrives.
aaronwt likes this.
wizwor is online now  
post #654 of 683 Old 09-16-2017, 07:46 AM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit, Tampa Bay
Posts: 14,638
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1251 Post(s)
Liked: 2420
ATSC 3.0
New Public Media Venture Group will exploit potential of ATSC 3.0

By Dru Sefton Dru Sefton, Senior Editor Current.org | September 14, 2017

Public Media Co. is assembling a Public Media Venture Group of stations to explore the mission and revenue potentials of ATSC 3.0, the upcoming broadcast protocol known as Next Generation TV.

The group will work on issues including technology, local public service expansion and revenue-generating joint ventures and partnerships. The internet-based ATSC 3.0 will give broadcasters enhanced audio and video capabilities and new ways of interacting with viewers.

“Stations participating in the Public Media Venture Group believe that Next Gen TV is just as exciting for public television stations as it is for commercial television,” said Public Media Co. CEO Marc Hand in an announcement Thursday.

“The new technology offers public television stations the opportunity to create innovative and exciting new public services, to improve operations, save costs, generate new revenue and invest more money in content and services that will better serve local communities,” Hand said.

Public Media Co. convened a series of meetings on ATSC 3.0 last year that yielded ideas for the venture group. Hand envisions a threefold focus: assembling station resources for the upcoming ATSC 3.0 transition, serving as a product-development hub for a range of revenue and mission-related ideas, and negotiating deals with commercial broadcasters and other entities seeking ATSC 3.0–related partnerships with public media stations.

Hand’s organization has joined the Advanced Television Systems Committee Inc., the international nonprofit developing the voluntary standard, “for more direct access to information,” he said. Public Media Co. also will become active in ATSC subcommittees of interest to public broadcasters, such as emergency alerts.

Hand is also talking with Pearl TV, the organization of commercial broadcasters exploring possibilities for the new protocol.

So far 18 public broadcasters are taking part in the Public Media Venture Group: Alabama Public Television; Iowa Public Television; Mississippi Public Broadcasting; Nebraska Network; Utah Education Network; KCET in Los Angeles; KVIE in Sacramento, Calif.; Nine Network in St. Louis; Rocky Mountain PBS in Denver; UNC-TV in North Carolina; Vegas PBS; WCTE in Cookeville, Tenn.; WFYI in Indianapolis; WGBH in Boston; WJCT in Jacksonville, Fla.; WNET in New York City; WOSU in Columbus, Ohio; and WTTW in Chicago.


https://current.org/2017/09/new-publ...l-of-atsc-3-0/

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.
DrDon is online now  
post #655 of 683 Old 09-16-2017, 11:44 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
veedon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Raleigh,NC
Posts: 1,936
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 916 Post(s)
Liked: 565
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
it would not surprise me to see carriers start to originate programming that comes complimentary. AT&T has stuck a toe into those waters with streaming for DirecTV customers that doesn't count against their data plans. Sure, you have to be a DirecTV customer and you could be limited to 480p.. so technically not free, but a step in that direction, nonetheless. Some carrier merges with Dish and it could get interesting.
Well, something will have to happen to address the conflict between the fact that a whole lot of people don't make as much money (in real dollars) as their parents did at the same age, and the fact that, nevertheless, many of those same people are somehow shelling out beaucoup bucks (in convenient monthly payments, of course) for smartphone hardware, cell service, and various fees for purchasing content.

The cost of cell phone service has gone up dramatically from what it was in the pre-smartphone days, so how can people afford to pay for cable TV, satellite TV, or virtual MVPD service on top of the "telephone" costs?

I mean, at some point people are going to have to come to the conclusion that watching programming that is perhaps not all that great but that is supported more by advertising than by subscriber fees is better than winding up in poverty.

Last edited by veedon; 09-16-2017 at 12:00 PM.
veedon is offline  
post #656 of 683 Old 09-16-2017, 02:21 PM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit, Tampa Bay
Posts: 14,638
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1251 Post(s)
Liked: 2420
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post
I mean, at some point people are going to have to come to the conclusion that watching programming that is perhaps not all that great but that is supported more by advertising than by subscriber fees is better than winding up in poverty.
If the reason for switching to broadcast television is a financial one, then those viewers become a group advertisers aren't interested in reaching.

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.
DrDon is online now  
post #657 of 683 Old 09-16-2017, 03:02 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
veedon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Raleigh,NC
Posts: 1,936
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 916 Post(s)
Liked: 565
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
If the reason for switching to broadcast television is a financial one, then those viewers become a group advertisers aren't interested in reaching.
I was not thinking of poor people. I was thinking of middle class people who would like as they get older to have a chance of remaining middle class. And I do see some TV advertising that is for products that everybody buys. Maybe there could be a new Mr. Whipple.

Not all of the TV commercials can be for cell phone companies and insurance companies.

The main thing that TV has to figure out is how to force people to watch the ads.
veedon is offline  
post #658 of 683 Old 09-16-2017, 03:22 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
wco81's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 6,468
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1463 Post(s)
Liked: 547
Many people cord cut to save money, not necessarily because they can't afford cable TV or have money to buy the things advertisers are trying to sell.
wco81 is online now  
post #659 of 683 Old 09-16-2017, 03:53 PM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit, Tampa Bay
Posts: 14,638
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1251 Post(s)
Liked: 2420
I know that. But advertisers won't see it that way. They already don't. To them, antenna users are poor. In the advertising world, perception is reality. Try selling country radio to ad agency execs in New York. Country fans have a lot of cash. New York ad agency executives perceive country fans as rednecks who live in trailer parks. We were the number one station in Detroit just about the whole time I was there. Never once did we run advertising from McDonalds, Coke, Pepsi, Miller, Budweiser, Burger King, Bass Pro Shops... Meanwhile, the soft rock station that was well out of the top ten had all of those and more. Ad agencies have it in their minds that people who don't have subscription television of some sort have less disposable income than those who do. Good luck changing that perception.

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.
DrDon is online now  
post #660 of 683 Old 09-16-2017, 04:14 PM
Advanced Member
 
NashGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Posts: 845
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 474 Post(s)
Liked: 266
I would think that TV advertising expenditures are increasingly based these days on hard data about the intended audiences (demographics, income level, education, cultural values, etc.) rather than generalized (and, as you tell it, very biased) perceptions among ad buyers about the audience. (As someone from Nashville, I can tell you there are a lot of wealthy folks who listen to country music, not just trailer park denizens.) I'm not discounting that your experiences in radio in past years isn't true but it seems like a pretty old-fashioned approach.

Increasingly, TV advertising will go the way of internet advertising: hyper-targeted at specific groups that guarantee greater bank for the advertising buck. Look at the software/cloud/IP-based platform that AT&T is building -- which includes targeted "programmatic" advertising -- which will serve as the basis for all their future video services across all types of screens.

OTA broadcasters, too, hope to play in that programmatic ad space, and that's part of what ATSC 3.0 is about.
NashGuy is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply HDTV Technical

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off